Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:13:01 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: Michael Hoffman Subject: Re: newbie's gripe with NT/2K/XP integration In-reply-to: X-X-Sender: grouse@mail.utexas.edu To: cygwin@cygwin.com Cc: Gen Zhang Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Gen Zhang wrote: > my question is why does cygwin support the technologically challenged > platforms 9x/ME and ruining what could be much better support for the NT > series. The reason the developers don't gratuitously break Cygwin for thousands of users is because they're mean. At least that's what I've always figured. Correct me if I'm wrong. > for example, the interface with security under 9x is actually > non-existent anyway and removing support for 9x would make cygwin code > smaller and neater (i'm an advocate of _very_ elegant coding), not to > mention faster and more secure (what do you know, i mentioned them > anyway :). Why don't you do it and report back to the list on the speed gains? There are security problems with Cygwin that have nothing to do with the non-NT Windows. http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/faq/faq_4.html#SEC79 > in any case, now that microsoft has combined 9x an NT into XP, isn't it time > that cygwin follows suit? No. -- Michael Hoffman The University of Texas at Austin -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/